The new constitution has more virtues than risks.

OpinionJournal editorialized "A formula for civil war," says Senator Joe Biden. He's referring to the Sunni rejection of the new Iraq constitution, and it's always possible that this time he'll be right. Then again, he and many others also predicted disaster before January's wildly successful Iraq elections. "It's going to be ugly," the Delaware Democrat said at the time.

The Senator has said many other foolish things in his life.

So here's a radical thought: How about letting Iraqis debate and vote on their new national charter before we Americans summarily denounce it as a failure?

Sounds like a good idea. And even if they vote it down, if they then move on to elections to elect a new assembly to try again, that is up to them.

By any existing Middle East standard, the new constitution is a great achievement. It promises to protect human rights, including free speech and the right to worship. It applies the very American principle of federalism, or decentralized power, to reassure multiethnic regions and various Muslim denominations and thus keep the country together.

In the US we are proud of "States Rights", yet many of us cirticize Iraq for wanting the same thing. Consider, they just went through a long period where a small minority had absolute rule over the entire country (just as we have had 40 years when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress). Isn't it reasonable that they want to maintain as much control of their area as they can get?

The majority Shiites, far from seeking to dominate other ethnic groups from Baghdad, are asking largely for the power to govern themselves. The entire country will now spend six weeks debating all of this leading up to an October referendum that will be freer and more open than the presidential election that Egypt will hold this coming weekend.

This result would certainly be better if Sunni leaders, including some on the drafting committee, were not urging other Sunnis to defeat it. But consider this: For the Sunnis to defeat the constitution they will have to participate in the vote. That's more than they did in January's elections, and by itself represents a commitment to a democratic process that many Americans insist isn't possible in an Arab culture.

It is also by no means clear that the constitution will be rejected by Iraq's voters. The pact must be repudiated by a two-thirds vote in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces. A large Sunni turnout could mean "no" votes in two of Iraq's three predominantly Sunni provinces--Anbar and Sulemaniyah--but is less likely in Nineveh, which has a large Kurdish population. Ratification in the other 15 predominantly Kurdish or Shiite provinces is all but assured.

In the secrecy of the voting booth, many Sunnis may even favor the charter that their ostensible leaders denounce. The constitution's protections are one shield against Shiite religious domination.

And if they reject this constitution, and another has to be written, those protections might not be in a new constitution.

Super-majority clauses also guarantee Sunni influence in parliament.....

For all of Iraq's security problems, the present moment is one of remarkable promise. A constitution, written in a spirit of compromise rare in the Middle East, has now been adopted by a freely elected, multiethnic, multidenominational Muslim government. This government now intends to put the constitution to a vote and--what's more amazing--abide by the result.

Four years ago, such a scenario for Iraq would have seemed improbable, to say the least. That it should now be denounced as inadequate is perhaps the best measure of how much progress a free Iraq has made.